Is there such a thing as selflessness?

[EmpNapoleon]

Everyone always talk about the "good" selfless act.  What about the "evil" selfless act.
For example, I sometimes want to tell a fat woman I don't know that she would be extremely more beautiful if she lost weight.  I would tell her to diet and exercise, something her friends never dare to mention.  Then, a "good" "selfless" samaritan would tell her not to listen to me because I'm an a$$hole.  However, I'd just be trying to help.

[Lady Chatterley]

Everyone always talk about the "good" selfless act.  What about the "evil" selfless act.
For example, I sometimes want to tell a fat woman I don't know that she would be extremely more beautiful if she lost weight.  I would tell her to diet and exercise, something her friends never dare to mention.  Then, a "good" "selfless" samaritan would tell her not to listen to me because I'm an a$$hole.  However, I'd just be trying to help.

I can assure you dear,that fat women are well aware of their condition and they know how to fix it.But they cling to their flesh because they are in emotional turmoil.Don't tell a fat woman to exercise,offer to join her for a pleasant walk.Or keep your lips together!

[BachQ]

What about the "evil" selfless act.

You EVIL, SELFLESS person !!!! I hope you ROT in HEAVEN !!!!

[Mozart]

Telling a fat woman to loose weight? How is that selfless?

[Lady Chatterley]

Telling a fat woman to loose weight? How is that selfless?

I agree wouldn't it be nicer to ask her?

[EmpNapoleon]

Telling a fat woman to loose weight? How is that selfless?

How is it selfish?  I'll do it tonight and tell you how it goes.

[EmpNapoleon]

Okay, I won't do it.  But, to clarify, I was talking about the ladies that need to lose 15-20 lbs to look beautiful, not the ton lbers.  And don't tell me that the latter can't help it, because I can't help being disgusted.

[david johnson]

There is no such thing as "pure" selflessness, because everyone must have a threshold concern for their own personal wellbeing.

not everyone.

dj

[drogulus]

     Selflessness is a form of cooperation against ones immediate perceived interest, which means another more important interest is being served. We attach moral significance according to the nature of that higher interest. Flying into the WTC for jihad is selfless and evil. Going into the building to rescue people is selfless, too. Like any other interest or strategy, selfless ones should be judged by intentions and consequences.

     The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod is supposed to be the classic work. I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with it through the many references in other works.

[longears]

     Selflessness is a form of cooperation against ones immediate perceived interest, which means another more important interest is being served. We attach moral significance according to the nature of that higher interest. Flying into the WTC for jihad is selfless and evil. Going into the building to rescue people is selfless, too. Like any other interest or strategy, selfless ones should be judged by intentions and consequences.

     The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod is supposed to be the classic work. I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with it through the many references in other works.

Except that if you're "martyred" in murdering for Islam you may do it to be a "hero" among other moral cripples and in hopes of those 77 virgins (or is it raisins?) in the afterlife.  Selfless?  Not in my book.  Evil?  Without a doubt!

[Kullervo]

You EVIL, SELFLESS person !!!! I hope you ROT in HEAVEN !!!!

[Hector]

Arguably, Mother Teresa was getting paid to do what she most enjoyed doing (helping poor people from India), and therefore was acting consistent with her own selfinterest.

In this case, selflessness and selfishness selfinterest coincide.

I see what you mean. Putting aside the fact that she was paid because I do not think that that would have been a consideration, she was serving her self-interest because her self-interest was serving others. Hmmm.

[mahlertitan]

I see what you mean. Putting aside the fact that she was paid because I do not think that that would have been a consideration, she was serving her self-interest because her self-interest was serving others. Hmmm.

but isn't that circular logic? "she was serving her self-interest because her self-interest was serving others"

[BachQ]

I see what you mean. Putting aside the fact that she was paid because I do not think that that would have been a consideration, she was serving her self-interest because her self-interest was serving others. Hmmm.

If you believe in motivational psychology, then once you attain the highest level (labelled "self-transcendence", which is beyond "self actualization"), it's possible that your primary motivation will become the attainment of a greater good for humanity, and your pursuit of self-oriented pleasures will become secondary or tertiary.

[drogulus]

Except that if you're "martyred" in murdering for Islam you may do it to be a "hero" among other moral cripples and in hopes of those 77 virgins (or is it raisins?) in the afterlife.  Selfless?  Not in my book.  Evil?  Without a doubt!

     Everyone has mixed motivations. The notion of purity in regards to selflessness is probably useless. Social beings like us derive actions from many inputs, and nothing is ever pure about it. Pay attention to your internal monologue whenever you do something noteworthy. You'll find yourself rehearsing all sorts of scenarios to explain giving that dollar to a homeless person. When your friend asks you why you did it, you'll be forced to settle on a plausible reason so you can say something. Is that the "real" reason? Is that the "pure" reason?

     Like many people I think that others are like me. It's a theory I will have to be forced to abandon with strong contrary evidence. So I think that motivations are a jumble and the ones we choose to "publish" tend to be self-flattering, even about selfless acts. But selfless acts do exist, if we are not too puritanical about definitions. 

[karlhenning]

The self is not negated in pure acts of selflessness, but affirmed.

To be sure;  it is the noblest of souls.

[karlhenning]

     Everyone has mixed motivations. The notion of purity in regards to selflessness is probably useless. Social beings like us derive actions from many inputs, and nothing is ever pure about it. Pay attention to your internal monologue whenever you do something noteworthy. You'll find yourself rehearsing all sorts of scenarios to explain giving that dollar to a homeless person. When your friend asks you why you did it, you be forced to settle on a plausible reason so you can say something. Is that the "real" reason? Is that the "pure" reason?

     Like many people I think that others are like me. It's a theory I will have to be forced to abandon with strong contrary evidence. So I think that motivations are a jumble and the ones we choose to "publish" tend to be self-flattering, even about selfless acts. But selfless acts do exist, if we are not too puritanical about definitions. 

Fine posts, Ernie, thank you.

[Sungam]

From "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project:

"Others will object that the Moral Law is simply a consequence of evolutionary pressures.  This objection arises from the new field of sociobiology, and attempts to provide explanations for altruistic behavior on the basis of its positive value in Darwinian selection.  If this argument could be show to hold up, the interpretation of many of the requirements of the Moral Law as a signpost to God would potentially be in trouble - so it is worth examining this point of view in more detail.  [. . .]

First, let's be clear what we're talking about.  By altruism I do not mean the "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of behavior that practices benevolence to others in direct expectation of reciprocal benefits.  Altruism is more interesting: the truly selfless giving of oneself to to others with absolutely no secondary motives.  when we see that kind of love and generosity, we are overcome with awe and reverence.  Oskar Schindler placed his life in great danger by sheltering more than a thousand Jews from Nazi extermination during World War II, and ultimately died penniless - and we feel a great rush of admiration fro his actions.  Mother Teresa has consistently ranked as one of the most admired individuals of the current age, though her self-imposed poverty and selfless giving to the sick and dying of Calcutta is in drastic contrast to the materialistic lifestyle that dominates our current culture. [. . .]

Agape, or selfless altruism, presents a major challenge for the evolutionist.  It is quite frankly a scandal to reductionist reasoning.  It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves.  Quite the contrary: it may lead humans to make sacrifices that lead to great personal suffering, injury, or death, without any evidence of benefit. [. . .]

Socioboiologists such as E. O. Wilson have attempted to explain this behavior in terms of some indirect reproductive benefits to the practitioner of altruism, but the arguments quickly run into trouble.  One proposal is that repeated altruistic behavior of the individual is recognized as a positive attribute in mate selection.  But this hypothesis is in direct conflict with observations in nonhuman primates that often reveal just the opposite - such as the practice of infanticide by a newly dominant male monkey, in order to clear the way for his own future offspring.  Another argument is that there are indirect reciprocal benefits from altruism that have provided advantages to the practitioner over evolutionary time; but this explanation cannot account for human motivation to practice small acts of conscience that no one else knows about.

A third argument is that altruistic behavior by members of a group provides benefits to the whole group.  Examples are offered of ant colonies, where sterile workers toil incessantly to create an environment where their mothers can have more children.  But this kind of "ant altruism" is readily explained in evolutionary terms by the fact that the genes motivating the sterile worker ants are exactly the same ones that will be passed on by their mother to the siblings they are helping to create.  That unusually direct DNA connection does not apply to more complex population, where evolutionists now agree almost universally that selection operates on the individual, not on the population.  The hardwire behavior of the worker ant is thus fundamentally different from the inner voice that causes me to feel compelled to jump into the river to try to save a drowning stranger, even if I'm not a good swimmer and may myself die in the effort.  furthermore, for the evolutionary argument about group benefits of altruism to hold, it would seem to require an opposite response, namely, hostility to individuals outside the group.  Oskar Schindler's and Mother Teresa's agape belies this kind of thinking.  Shockingly, the Moral Law will ask me to save the drowning man even if he is an enemy."

[drogulus]

     Collins is wrong to think that instances of brutal competition make cooperative strategies less likely. They can and do work in parallel.

     As for:

but this explanation cannot account for human motivation to practice small acts of conscience that no one else knows about.

      This is well understood as "being good in order to seem good". If altruism is to arise as a natural strategy, it needs a foothold. It starts by convincing potential fellow cooperators that you are a real rather than a fake cooperater, too. No better strategy has been devised than that of becoming a real cooperator! In the arms race of cooperation/defection insincerity-detection should become very acute. If you can't convince yourself you are a genuine cooperator, you may not be able to convince others. 

A third argument is that altruistic behavior by members of a group provides benefits to the whole group.

Benefits to genes in kin is enough. Benefits for groups is along for the ride.

Oskar Schindler's and Mother Teresa's agape belies this kind of thinking.  Shockingly, the Moral Law will ask me to save the drowning man even if he is an enemy."

What nature has built, culture has appropriated. Remember what Dawkins said about rising up against the tyranny of the selfish replicators. We have stolen their invention and made it our own, and now we do things for our own reasons, not for theirs.

[Lady Chatterley]

Okay, I won't do it.  But, to clarify, I was talking about the ladies that need to lose 15-20 lbs to look beautiful, not the ton lbers.  And don't tell me that the latter can't help it, because I can't help being disgusted.

I can't help being disgusted by such a dreadfully shallow view of women.Perhaps your unfamiliar with the depth of human love.
When Napoleon met Josephine her teeth were so rotten they looked like baked beans,it mattered not a whit to him,he simply adored her halitosis and all.